Commons:Deletion requests/File:F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven.jpg

This is a 1938 image. No reason is given why it is PD. IN order for that to be correct, the photographer would have had to die by 1942. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the testamentery heirs declare that the pictures of F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven are in the meantime without any copyright claims even it seems to be not! --Deklamat (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless one of the heirs is a copyright lawyer, or otherwise skilled in copyright matters, it is very unlikely they know what the status of the copyright actually is. The copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer, so that the heirs cannot give the necessary permission. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author ([1])of this picture is the nephew of Zeylmans van E. The source of this photograph in question is his private photo album. I think everything is correct. Please leave it.--Trannyl (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true normaly the copyright belongs to the photographer but F.W. Z.v.E. payed the Photorapher to became the copyrights of it. The Contract ist lost but since that time there where never Problems about this agreement between Photographer and the Family Z.v.E. (the Photo is allready published in books etc). --Deklamat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is anymor a Problem then I found this: "Für anonyme Werke bestimmt § 66 UrhG, dass das Urheberrecht bereits 70 Jahre nach der Erstveröffentlichung der Aufnahme erlischt (bzw. nach der Erstellung, falls das Werk 70 Jahre lang unveröffentlicht blieb) on Bilder deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist --Deklamat (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if the two of you would get your stories straight. Was the photographer the nephew or was it the professional who was paid? While our policy is to Assume Good Faith -- that is, too assume that users are speaking correctly -- when we get different stories that rapidly shifts the other way. It is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is properly licensed.

As for the anonymous works quote, that applies only to works that were actually published anonymously. The fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make it an anonymous work. In order to rely on that portion of the law, you must prove that the photographer was never known, and that is impossible in the case of a studio portrait sold to the subject. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JIM OK I think I understand now the Problem. It was the first picture I upload and I did'nt have enough Information about the terms and conditions. Now I changed a bit te Information an conditions on the File. I am not sur, but I hope it solved a bit the difficulty. I had needed a coach for commons (german or dutch) as I have allready for the german and dutch WIKIS. Now I see (a bit late) their is a insurmountable difference between the real Sitution in NL and EU on one side and the provisions on wiki commons and laws on the other side. Their is nobody on earth who could uprise a copyright claim on this photography. Neighther their was one for all the other pictures of Z.v.E. who are in the mean time published. Nobody can show the evidence, nobody verify the contretary. It is an unprovable Situation. All familymembers who could verify the things I affirm, died in the meantime. We prefer to leave the diskussion open as it is, otherwise if you can’t agree with it. I’ll delete the picture by myself immidiatly from WIKI COMMONS. (would be verry, verry pitty but I ‚ll understand your different view as ADMIN of Commons. (I think it's better for my account if I do it by myself!!)Sorry (I hope you aplogy me) for all the complications and missunderstandig I've made to you as a newcomer on commons --Deklamat (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand your frustration here. Commons, and the copyright rules that go along with it, can be very difficult for a new contributor. It has been a few years since I first signed on here, but I well remember having to learn my way around. If I can be helpful, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Unfortunately we are quite strict about copyright. Unless the image is obviously Public Domain because of age or some other special rule, then we require a license from the photographer, even in situations where it is almost certain that no one will complain. The burden of proof is on the uploader to show beyond a significant doubt that the image is free to use. Please read COM:PRP which sets forth the standard which we use..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ JIM: Dear JIM thanks for the fast reaction I can't see what you mean with PRP (red) and you did'nt say if I have to delete the picture now. That you'll help me in the future is verry kind and I thank you in advance! What was happend with my talk page and user Page ? now it's suddenly complete white again. I hope I'm not blocked on commons? --Deklamat (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Now suddenly I can see the "Babel again on the Userpage and the things on "talk" --Deklamat (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:PRP -- sorry about the typo. You cannot delete the picture. The Administrator who closes this will delete it if he or she decides that deletion is appropriate. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading COM:PRP my not authoritative opinion {the authoritative opinion belongs to the admins and OTRS-Teams) is:

• there is not a significant doubt about the freedom of the file: F.W.Z.v.E (only a little).
• The copyright owner (if there exists one at all without Deklamat) to have sue allready if he did n't agree with the lot of publication of this and other photos of F.W. Z.v.E.
• The last copyright owner for myself of things that belongs to F.W. Z.v.E. was my father J.E. Z.v.E.. As bookseller and publisher he know all the rights about copies and decided till his dead all for F.W. Z.v.E. (also photografies] by himself!
• If their would be a chance to find out the photographer or his heirs, I would n't save effort and pain to find out and ask them. But after Worldwar II and the lot of destroyed things in EU it's impossible.
• so I ask in this verry special case to temper justice with mercy!!

With kind regards and a still hope for a positive dicision: --Deklamat (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as per above. Yann (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep--Trannyl (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AS I have said several times, the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs, not to the subject or his heirs, so the family cannot license this. The argument that the photographer is not going to sue is explicitly rejected by COM:PRP. It is too bad that we can't keep this orphan image, but we cannot keep most such images. That's the law and our policy. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for patience. Yesterday I wrote Zeylmans van Emmichoven Archiv in Arlesheim Svizzera, as well kulturimpuls.org today the anthropsophical society Netherlands and ask them about the copyright, probably they have the licence of the photos. I'll inform at this page as soon as I become ansers of this three Institutions! --Deklamat (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kulturimpuls.org Became the licence to publish the photo from Emanuel Zeylmans van Emmichoven the sun of Frederik Willem who published 1979 the biography of his father wit this photography on the first page. Mrs. Pörksen of the Zeylmans van Emmichoven Archiv wrote that this wasn't maked 1937 or 1938 but allready in 1929 or 1930. It was a Foto in Relation to the "Kamp de Stakenberg" -See further Information on kulturimpuls.org or "The antroposphical youth- and studentswork between 1920 and 1931". It seems in all probability an published orphan work since 1930 (83 years ago). I am still searching to become evident Information about it. --Deklamat (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still again. There are many orphan works which we cannot keep. For countries where the rule is 70 years pma, our rule of thumb is that a work must be 130 years old before we assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. While 83 years is a long time, the photographer would have to live only another 13 years for this to still be in copyright. He could easily have lived 60, 70, or even 80 years after making this photograph.

There are only three serious possibilities to keep this image:

• You prove that the photographer chose to remain anonymous, something that is very rare and obviously not the case here
• You prove that the photographer died before 1942 (soon to be 1943)
• You obtain the consent of the photographer or his heirs, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wat' with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act? I thought that if I can show that the Photo in 1930 anonymiously is published now it's PD? I can't at the moment, but I still investigat my research in all directions, also in the three that Jim lists!. An other possibility is, that the author declared, that F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven and after he / she died / or E. Zeylmans van Emmichoven became the copyright as heir of the author. The problem: the Research will probably take serveral months. But you see, I take the votes of Jim verry seriously! --Deklamat (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep / Reason: In according to: URAA then it is a public orphan work since 1929 (Newsletter in preparation for “Kamp de Stakenberg”). Second public oprhan publication: WorlCat:Willem Zeylmans van Emmichoven : ein Pionier der Anthroposophie Site 3 at: 17. November 1979. --Deklamat (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Keep[reply]

Again, in order to make that argument you must prove that the photographer chose to be anonymous, something that is very unusual. "Anonymous" does not apply simply because the image is an orphan, or we do not know who the photographer was. It only applies if the photographer chose it deliberately..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Jim but your Arguments are now a bit strange. I can't ask an anonumous photographer: "Was this picture in the newsletter from 1929 in preparation to "Kamp de Stakenberg" (in august 1930) deliberatly anonymously published or not?" Even I can't ask J.E. Zeylmans van Emmichoven († 8.july 2008):"Did you published this photo in the biography of your Father in 1979 deliberatly anonumously in contrast to all the other photographies in the same book or not?" But probably I do n't understand your arguments verry well in course of my verry elementary english. --Deklamat (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep! After all my firm conviction is in accord with the rules of WIKIMEDIA COMMONS  Keep! --Deklamat (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as we cannot sure that this photograph is in the public domain. The copyright status is still uncertain as we do not know anything about the photographer. Please consider that this photograph was apparently published first in 1979 at a time where we can be sure that it was still copyright protected. This means that according to Dutch and German copyright law we have to wait until 2050 to be sure that this picture is in the public domain unless the photographer becames known. Please note that we are far more strict in this regard as common publishers who happily settle this in case of the unlikely event that a copyright holder surfaces. Please note also that the payment of a photographer does not imply a transfer of the copyright. This is unusual and usually requires a contract. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]